delete

[s1gs3gv]

Please speak for yourself. I'm not a beta tester.

Whether or not you perceive you are doesn't change the fact that you are, everyone in cryptos is a beta tester.

That is a very cavalier and self serving statement.

I guess your implied argument is that because there is risk in cryptos, it is acceptable for someone to conduct experiments on the AUR (and others, by self-incrimination {errrrmm self-admission}) block chain even though they can be expected to result in property loss to other people.

I'm done with you buddy until you show some signs of independent thought and stop being a ~BCT~ sockpuppet
+ignore

[s1gs3gv]

The real motive for the ~BCT~  'experiment' :

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505534.0

[illodin]

3) Humour me mate, tell me why I shouldn't test on this scam coin?

Because messing up with wrong kind of people's monies might get you killed.

Disclaimer before mouths start to foam: No, I'm not that kind of people. No, I'm not threatening anyone. Simply stating it's a possibility and a reason not to do it.

I still don't get what you get out of this ?  are you seeking validation, attention ?  you come across very full of yourself and smug.  like i said before, I have no idea of whether or not you have the skill set to do what you indicate; what I do know is you are coming across like a total hater and are the equiv. to an internet terrorist of sorts. 

Probably asberger's, narcissism, and lack of mother's love as a child. Also doesn't bench even 150 lbs.

[Eex77]

So are you going to do it or what?

Yes, when block 5400 or KGW gets deployed.

Which ever comes first.


~BCX~

I still don't get what you get out of this ?  are you seeking validation, attention ?  you come across very full of yourself and smug.  like i said before, I have no idea of whether or not you have the skill set to do what you indicate; what I do know is you are coming across like a total hater and are the equiv. to an internet terrorist of sorts. 

He pretty much does this to extend and have people stroke his e-peen. I can't really see any other reason for it, but it is entertaining to watch his back and forth.

[Jollyburner]

Testing that has the potential to destroy private property should not be done on the public block chains.

Besides, all I am going to do is mine it in a different way, I'm not responsible for design flaws LOL

~BCX~

+1

such truth, much appreciate, subscribed to yo nuts.

[kelsey]

I'm done with you buddy until you show some signs of independent thought and stop being a ~BCT~ sockpuppet
+ignore

Lol I'm hardly BCX sockpuppet, his testing/mining in the past has cost me, we've also had a few big clashes in the past (many regulars from the old cryptsy chat could confirm that).

However despite several difference of opinion, we are both intelligent enough not you just blanket disagree with each others every comment out of spite etc.

BCX could just as easily experimentally mine a coin I've invested in, just be happy you've had the headsup.

[sonysasankan]

"Judge, I exploited fake money (that a few people where trying to make real money out of) on the internet..."....hmmmmm

"Judge. All I did was exploit a design flaw in a door with a lock pick I invented myself and smashed up a few things because I didn't like the way the house was built..

So, you see, its all the door's fault.

~~XCB~~

Ok, lets talk about whether crypto-currencies are fake money or represent value (property) that some people may have spent time or money to acquire.

More to the point is how a present day judge would perceive it; on that note (and the fact we are talking Auroracoin here) I'm willing to stick with the fake money.

Your remarks trivialize the very real and significant issues surrounding the ~BCX~ announcement regarding crypto, property, and individual rights.
Are you justifying the destruction of private property on the basis that you don't think this particular coin has any value ?

Prisoner: "Judge, the house I smashed up wasn't a real house, it was a fake house"

Judge: "Prisoner and council are *both* remanded in custody for psychological evaluation"

To be fair, just because you have invested time and money in acquiring AUR either by mining or trading, that does not mean others have to uphold the value of the "property" you posses. If someone else found a method to drive your coins to zero value, fair and square by expoiting a hole in the open source system, then by all means its his right to do so. He's not hacking into your system and stealing them from you or anything. To me you sound like the horse carriage owner who is huffing and puffing at the news of a different kind of carriage that does not require horses. We need these kind of black swan events to strengthen the system.... you don't build earthquake proof skyscrapers if you don't have earthquakes. Get what I'm saying? We need earthquake proof crypto... and nobody really cares for the people who are caught in the crossfire.... the emergence of the better system after a catastrophy is what is going to drive cryptos forward.

[Nite69]

This might be just a story, but a nice one so I write it, wheather it is true or not.

First you generate a block in the future, so it's KGW difficulty calculation just hits the event horizon. After you have that block, you generate another one, the same time ahead to the future. With each block you generate, KGW generously offers you a smaller difficulty for your own secret blockchain. You go to the future, so far that you'll get the lowest possible diff. (Edit: Actually could you occasionally step backwards in time so eventually do not end in the future at all? You might use one block (and get higher diff) to get back in time worth 5 blocks (which give you 5x lower diff you payed when going back))

After that the join begins! You have the lowest difficulty and you happily generate blocks with timestamp exactly 5 minutes. Since you are floating out of the real time, you can generate them at any speed you wish, as far as you keep the timestamps at 5 min interval.

Now you have a long, secret blockchain. But bummer, it is in the future! No pain.. you start climbing back to the real time. But unfortunately, each block is more difficult.. this time KGW demands its reward...  "A timestamp is accepted as valid if it is greater than the median timestamp of previous 11 blocks, and less than the network-adjusted time + 2 hours." You hit the time warp wall and then you can only wait. (Edit: you can do more: build blocks, use one of 5 to get halfway back..repeat) However, when real blockchain reaches you.. you might be lucky enought to have a higher blockchain. And when you announce this to the other clients, in the correct time window.. the chain is all yours!

And then they revert back to the block 5400 and you lose everything.

Nice story, isn't it?


Edit: when you are inside your own blockchain, you can actually generate blocks faster than outside word. Generate 11 blocks at 5 min interval, get halfway back in time with one block, generate next 11 blocks etc.

No comments on this? Noone has yet proven this rigt or wrong? Since BCX is quiet, I assume this is it. And if it is, It is easy to fix.

The problem: KGW allows miner to generate an own blockchain with *lower diff* by generating blocks whose timestamp is in the future. The real problem is that this is not syncronous; that miner can come 'back in time' for free; it should be punished with equal rise in diff or prevented at all.

FIX: DO NOT ALLOW TIMESTAMP BEFORE ANY EARLIER BLOCKS!

Edit: However, that should be thought carefully; would it cause problems, if someone mines block 1.59 minutes in the future by purpose?

Edit2: Current time syncronization is good enought so we should be able to make that windows smaller; maybe even 10 minutes? Half hour?  

Edit3: Here is a fix:

Code:

diff --git a/src/main.h b/src/main.h
index 830e451..b7a7570 100644
--- a/src/main.h
+++ b/src/main.h
@@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ public:
         return true; // CheckProofOfWork(GetBlockHash(), nBits);
     }
 
-    enum { nMedianTimeSpan=11 };
+    enum { nMedianTimeSpan=1 };
 
     int64 GetMedianTimePast() const
     {

Edit4: Correct fix would be modify the KGW code so it will calculate diff adjustment correctly with negative times. The gain in diff when going forward in time should be payed back when coming back.

I have a feeling this has popped up earlier... but I think the system should also make automatic checkpoints. There should never be any good reason to roll blockchain back more than mining confirmation time. All clients should make an automatic checkpoint at blocks that has been confirmed and whose coinbase coins are usable. Maybe it could be even later, even 6 blocks.

[TotalPanda]

no worry about the BCX clown
Balduro is more skilled (roll back is possible)

[disclaimer201]

Still waiting for Litecoin to be 51% attacked. All this causes is FUD and temporary price loss. Nothing is going to happen.

[Nite69]

Another scenarion:
After block 5400, our secret miner (or not-so-secret) makes a private blockchain. Normal block interval is 5 minutes, but our miner decides to timestamp his block 1 day forwad. For the next block he gets 20% lower difficulty than the outside word. He cannot publish the block, it will not be accepted because it is not in the present 2 hour time window. No matter, he continues, generates another block 1 day forward. Again, 20% lower difficulty for the next.. after 5 blocks he is at 33% of the official difficulty. Then, he makes the trick; he can go backward in time to the *median* time of 11 last blocks.. ie he can go to the time he started. And he has 33% of the difficulty compared to the outside word.  (Edit: actually going backward in time costs him 20%, but 33 + 20% is still under 40%)

After generating 6 blocks at normal rate, he can do it again. And again..

He cannot publish the chain unless the highest block is on the time window. But that is not a problem, he can travel in time, as long as he follows the rule!

Remove that one "1" from the source. Has someone counted the blocks that has gone backward in time? Is there really any need for that?
(Edit: lol, this must be the smallest security hole fix in the history of bitcoin..)

Edit: Found out that the limit on going lower is not 20%, but 10%. It slows down a bit this, but does not prevent it.

[Nite69]

Still waiting for Litecoin to be 51% attacked. All this causes is FUD and temporary price loss. Nothing is going to happen.

Litecoin does not have KGW. There really is a flaw. It should be fixed.

[Nite69]

Another scenarion:
After block 5400, our secret miner (or not-so-secret) makes a private blockchain. Normal block interval is 5 minutes, but our miner decides to timestamp his block 1 day forwad. For the next block he gets 20% lower difficulty than the outside word. He cannot publish the block, it will not be accepted because it is not in the present 2 hour time window. No matter, he continues, generates another block 1 day forward. Again, 20% lower difficulty for the next.. after 5 blocks he is at 33% of the official difficulty. Then, he makes the trick; he can go backward in time to the *median* time of 11 last blocks.. ie he can go to the time he started. And he has 33% of the difficulty compared to the outside word.  (Edit: actually going backward in time costs him 20%, but 33 + 20% is still under 40%)

After generating 6 blocks at normal rate, he can do it again. And again..

He cannot publish the chain unless the highest block is on the time window. But that is not a problem, he can travel in time, as long as he follows the rule!

Remove that one "1" from the source. Has someone counted the blocks that has gone backward in time? Is there really any need for that?
(Edit: lol, this must be the smallest security hole fix in the history of bitcoin..)

Ok, BCX, and the audience. What is the judgement? Busted or not busted? We have plenty of time to fix this. But do the other alt coins having KGW?

Edit: I assume silence as an admitting response.

[disclaimer201]

Still waiting for Litecoin to be 51% attacked. All this causes is FUD and temporary price loss. Nothing is going to happen.

Litecoin does not have KGW. There really is a flaw. It should be fixed.

Lol, perhaps this will be good for coins like Ltc and Dgc who did not jump onto the KGW bandwaggon but came up with own solutions.

[Nite69]

Another scenarion:
After block 5400, our secret miner (or not-so-secret) makes a private blockchain. Normal block interval is 5 minutes, but our miner decides to timestamp his block 1 day forwad. For the next block he gets 20% lower difficulty than the outside word. He cannot publish the block, it will not be accepted because it is not in the present 2 hour time window. No matter, he continues, generates another block 1 day forward. Again, 20% lower difficulty for the next.. after 5 blocks he is at 33% of the official difficulty. Then, he makes the trick; he can go backward in time to the *median* time of 11 last blocks.. ie he can go to the time he started. And he has 33% of the difficulty compared to the outside word.  (Edit: actually going backward in time costs him 20%, but 33 + 20% is still under 40%)

After generating 6 blocks at normal rate, he can do it again. And again..

He cannot publish the chain unless the highest block is on the time window. But that is not a problem, he can travel in time, as long as he follows the rule!

Remove that one "1" from the source. Has someone counted the blocks that has gone backward in time? Is there really any need for that?
(Edit: lol, this must be the smallest security hole fix in the history of bitcoin..)

Ok, BCX, and the audience. What is the judgement? Busted or not busted? We have plenty of time to fix this. But do the other alt coins having KGW?

Edit: I assume silence as an admitting response.

Sure, run a long and fix KGW.

I have said several times that code flaws in KGW are not the heart of this.

KGW needs to perform as designed in order for this work hence why I waiting for KGW deployment.


~BCX~

If you bothered to read my text, I suggested to prevent generating blocks whose timestamps are in the past, not a change in the KGW (well actually I suggested that a while ago, but I was wrong, it was not the core failure).

Yes, KGW just allows one to use the possibility to get quickly lower diff by timestamping the blocks to the future. And since standard allows to warp back after 5 blocks, you get your private, low-diff block chain back in real time so others will accept it as the new official chain.

Edit: I could be wrong, I could be right. But as long as there are no comments from the others, this is just my opinion. But as I said, I could be right. So I suggest you call all KGW implemented altcoins to review my theory. You should do it quicky; if I happpen to be right, you might already have someone building an own blockchain.. hurry up! Prove I'm wrong and there is no flaw!

[s1gs3gv]

To be fair, just because you have invested time and money in acquiring AUR either by mining or trading, that does not mean others have to uphold the value of the "property" you posses.

[snip]

 ... and nobody really cares for the people who are caught in the crossfire.... the emergence of the better system after a catastrophy is what is going to drive cryptos forward.

wrt your first argument, it sounds like you are advocating for a lawless society where other people's property rights are not respected

wrt your second argument, this is the old 'The ends justify the means' argument, which has been used in the past by all kinds of miscreants to justify harm against others.

+ignore until you show evidence of a high school diploma

[sonysasankan]

To be fair, just because you have invested time and money in acquiring AUR either by mining or trading, that does not mean others have to uphold the value of the "property" you posses.

[snip]

 ... and nobody really cares for the people who are caught in the crossfire.... the emergence of the better system after a catastrophy is what is going to drive cryptos forward.

wrt your first argument, it sounds like you are advocating for a lawless society where other people's property rights are not respected

wrt your second argument, this is the old 'The ends justify the means' argument, which has been used in the past by all kinds of miscreants to justify harm against others.

+ignore until you show evidence of a high school diploma

Would you please shut it with the property rights property rights property rights nonsense?

Of course property needs to be respected. That's not even questionable. I am questioning your thinking about why you think someone needs to take your investment into consideration when they clearly have no obligation to. For example, If you hold a considerable amount of shares of Microsoft, and If im a programmer who discovered a serious security flaw in the Windows OS that enabled me to switch on your webcam without you knowing, and I exposed that to the world. That resulted in millions trying to "check it out" leading many people to abandon the OS and move to Linux, thereby plummeting the stocks to peanuts and millions of people losing millions. In a scenario like that, do you seriously think I have an obligation to consider the value of your shares in Microsoft before I make my move? Of course not! You choosing to buy Microsoft shares from all other available shares is a risk you take.... so why is it any different with AUR?

As for the second one, are you like: "Oh, we have an end-justifies-the-means fellow. Must be evil." You seem to be relying on predetermined stereotypical conclusions instead of actually going about and giving any proper arguments on WHY I am wrong. Using that logic, I too can throw out pseudo Buddhist farts like "Progress should not come at the cost of harming someone", etc

[illodin]

It is very much a possibility that there are AUR holders in a country where doing whatever OP is planning on doing will be illegal, i.e. attacking money transfers, forging transfers, and what not. Or OP himself might be living in one. Comparing shares of a company to a currency is not applicable.

[kalus]

It is very much a possibility that there are AUR holders in a country where doing whatever OP is planning on doing will be illegal, i.e. attacking money transfers, forging transfers, and what not. Or OP himself might be living in one. Comparing shares of a company to a currency is not applicable.

there is no 'attack'.  the blockchain is working as designed.  

Due to the rampant inflation of its supposed value, the hashrate cannot protect the blockchain from an attack anymore. learning about the state of the blockchain should be important to anybody that researchs cryptocurrencies before investing hashrate into them.  If you cannot protect a blockchain which is distributed by design from a single entity, there is nothing that will stop even a small cartel from wrecking the coin.

ergo, auroracoin is overvalued because the inability of the community to maintain its own blockchain.  the solution is to send the value of auroracoin down to a level where it is sustainable, and can build a network hashrate that can protect the value of the coin.

the thread discussions here are déjà vu with previous BCX threads, so you should at least read up on what's happened in the past.  

[s1gs3gv]

there is nothing that will stop even a small cartel from wrecking the coin.   

By cartel, I assume you mean an organization of people subject to the RICO criminal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1963) ?